Local 69, United Assn. of Journeymen, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 26, 1962

136 N.L.R.B. 1556 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

1556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
manifest to Weber through the Union 's attempt of June 28 to represent McKenna.
For I am persuaded that had McKenna himself sought directly to change that re-
lationship , after the Respondent 's decision of some 2 weeks earlier had been con-
veyed to him by Weber, reluctance to discontinue what Davis had initiated would
just as readily have been dissipated , without the presence of any union in the
picture at all.
In short , since there is not a scintilla of evidence as to any antiunion sentiment
on the part of any representative of the Respondent's management , and since there
is nothing in the record to indicate that Weber would have had any reason for trying
to discourage membership in labor organization of which all of the employees in
the admitted appropriate unit covered by the current agreement had for years been
members, I do not see how the coincidence of timing alone can justify holding that
the Respondent was motivated in terminating McKenna by his union affiliation. This
is especially so since I am convinced that Weber honestly believed that McKenna
was not an employee , and that the Union 's request merely served to demonstrate
McKenna's unwillingness to continue a relationship which the Respondent itself had
for some time been considering discontinuing for "sound business economic reasons."
In any event , I am not satisfied that the General Counsel has sustained his burden
of proving that McKenna 's discharge was caused by his union affiliation 41 Accord-
ingly , it will be recommended below that the allegations of the complaint as to
McKenna's discharge be dismissed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
3. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5 ) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law , I recom-
mend that the complaint herein be dismissed in its entirety.
41 Compare Community Shops , Inc, 130 NLRB 1522, and cases cited therein. In the
instant matter there are no such surrounding circumstances as would render the Respond-
ent's action illegal because an illegal result must be assumed to have been intended.
Local 69, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of
the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States
and Canada, AFL-CIO and Robert Levine and Plumbing
and Heating Employers Association of Hudson and Bergen
Counties, N.J., Parties to the Contract . Case No. 22-CB-417.
April 26, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 29, 1961, Trial Examiner Lloyd R. Fraker issued his
Intermediate Report herein, finding that the Respondent had engaged
in unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent and the
General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and sup-
porting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Leedom.]
136 NLRB No. 141.
LOCAL 69, UNITED ASSN. OF JOURNEYMEN, ETC. 1557
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions
and briefs, and the entire record. The Board affirms the Trial Exami-
ner's rulings and adopts his findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions with the following modifications.'
1. The Trial Examiner made his jurisdictional findings as to com-
merce, and correctly so, on the basis of the commerce facts alleged in
the complaint, since the Respondent in its answer neither admitted,
denied, explained, nor showed good cause why the commerce allega-
tions should not be deemed to be admitted to be true. However, there
is substantial undisputed evidence in the record that one member of
the Employers Association received equipment valued in excess of
$100,000 from out of State during the year preceding the hearing and
that three other members of the Association performed services out of
State valued in excess of $1,250,000 during the same period. We shall,.
therefore, also predicate the Board's jurisdiction on these additional
jurisdictional facts.
2. In finding that the Respondent violated the Act the Trial Exami-
ner credited the testimony of the two men who were refused referral
by the Respondent, Levine and Besterman, and discredited the testi-
mony of Zampella, Respondent's business agent, because of his de-
meanor on the stand. The Trial Examiner also credited the testimony
of Geiger, proprietor of the Geiger Company. From the evidence in
the record, however, the Trial Examiner drew only the negative in-
ference that, since the Respondent's conduct could be rationally ex-
plained in no other way, its refusal to refer the two men must have
been because of their nonmembership in Local 69. Although we agree
with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the Respondent failed
to refer the two men because of their nonmembership in the Respond-
ent, we do not find it necessary to predicate the finding on a negative
inference. On the contrary, we agree with the General Counsel that,
accepting the credibility findings of the Trial Examiner, there is ample
evidence in the record to support an affirmative finding on this issue.
The record affirmatively establishes that : Levine and Besterman
were officers of Local 14, United Association of Journeymen and Ap-
prentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United
States and Canada, AFL-CIO; in June 1960 the United Association
revoked the charter of Local 14; thereupon the Respondent, Local 69,
was chartered to take the place of Local 14; and Local 69 then admitted
to membership the former members of Local 14 except Local 14's
1 The General Counsel excepted to the failure of the Trial Examiner to recommend that
the Respondent be required to refer Levine and Besterman in a nondiscriminatory manner
as well as to record them on its out-of-work list. We find merit in this contention and
will therefore amend the Order and notice accordingly . And since the evidence reveals
an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act we shall issue a broad cease-and-desist
order.
1558 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
former officers. As former officers, Levine and Besterman were ex-
cluded. The record also shows that Levine and Besterman have en-
deavored and are endeavoring through their attorney to become
members of Local 69, but have been unable to do so.
On March 19, 1961, Levine and Besterman were laid off by Geiger.
On May 22, 1961, the two men went to Respondent's office to sign up
on Respondent's out-of-work list. Business Agent Zampella was in-
formed of the visit by Respondent's office secretary. On May 29, 1961,
the two men returned to the office to find out if their names were on the
list. Zampella informed them that their names were on the list but
that "I have fifty or sixty of my own union men out of work before I
even think of you fellows, get out."
On Wednesday, June 21, Geiger sent a telegram to Zampella stat-
ing : "Request you refer Frank Besterman and Robert Levine to my
shop for work on Monday morning, June 26, 1961." On Thursday,
June 22, Zampella spoke to Geiger on the telephone. He told Geiger
that the telegraphic request was insufficient and that Geiger would
have to come to Respondent's office and sign a written request for the
two men. During their conversation Geiger again asked for the
services of Levine and Besterman.
On the following day, June 23, Levine and Besterman visited
Respondent's office and asked if Geiger had requested that they be
referred to him. Zampella conceded that he had received the telegram
from Geiger but stated that he would not refer them until Geiger
signed an affidavit. Levine and Besterman then asked that they be
referred to work for Geiger and Zampella replied that he had no
written request from Geiger and that Levine and Besterman were not
members of the Respondent. He then asked the two men to leave the
office. A fight then broke out and Zampella had warrants issued
against Levine and Besterman.
In the subsequent criminal proceeding Zampella was asked to de-
scribe the operation of the Respondent's hiring hall. In doing so he
stated that "he sends his own men out, union men out first, and then
he will send others out."
The above findings of fact, based either on uncontraditced testimony
or upon the testimony of witnesses credited by the Trial Examiner,
presents a clear case of discrimination against individuals because of
their nonmembership in a union. Zampella's repeated statements to
Levine and Besterman that his refusal to refer them stemmed from
their inability to acquire membership in the Respondent and his fur-
ther statement in the criminal proceeding to the same effect, establish
the Respondent's illegal motivation beyond question and obviate the
necessity of extended discussion. We therefore hold that, in refusing
to refer Levine and Besterman to the Walter F. Geiger Company, the
LOCAL 69, UNITED ASSN. OF JOURNEYMEN, ETC. 1559
Respondent caused Geiger not to employ Levine and Besterman on
and after June 26, 19612
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Local 69, United Associa-
tion of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fit-
ting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, its officers,
representatives, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Causing or attempting to cause Walter F. Geiger, doing busi-
ness as Walter F. Geiger Company, to discriminate against Robert
Levine and Francis Besterman, Jr., in violation of Section 8(a) (3)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
(b) Causing or attempting to cause any other member of the Plumb-
ing and Heating Employers Association of Hudson and Bergen
Counties, N.J., to discriminate against Levine and Besterman in viola-
tion of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(c) In any other manner restraining or coercing the employees of
Walter F. Geiger Company, or of any other member of the Associa-
tion, in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the
Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agree-
ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment, as authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of said Act as modified
by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to
effectuate the policies of said Act :
(a) Make whole Robert Levine and Francis Besterman, Jr., for
any loss of earnings they may have suffered as a result of the dis-
crimination against them, in the manner indicated in the section of
the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Notify Walter F. Geiger Company and the Plumbing and
Heating Employers Association of Hudson and Bergen Counties, N.J.,
that it has no objection to employment by them of Levine and Bester-
man and concurrently therewith deliver copies of the notice to Levine
and Besterman.
(c) Upon request, record the names of Levine and Besterman on
its out-of-work list in the same manner and to the same extent in which
it records the names of other journeymen plumbers on the list and
refer Besterman and Levine to employment in a nondiscriminatory
manner.
2In conformity with this finding we will amplify paragraph 4 of the Conclusions of
Law of the Intermediate Report by the insertion after the word "Respondent" and before
the word "caused," the words "violated Section 8(b) (2) and (1) (A) of the Act in that it"
1560 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(d) Post copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix,""
in conspicuous places in its office in Jersey City, New Jersey, includ-
ing all places where notices to its members are customarily posted.
Copies of the notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Board's Twenty-second Region to the Respondent, shall, after being
signed by a responsible officer of the Respondent, be posted immedi-
ately as above provided and shall be maintained by the Respondent
for a period of 60 consecutive days and the Respondent shall take
reasonable steps to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(e) Furnish to the Regional Director signed copies of the notice,
for posting by Geiger and the other members of the Association, if
willing, for a period of 60 days, at their respective places of business
in places where notices to their employees are customarily posted.
(f) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith.
3 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF THE MEMBERS OF
THE PLUMBING AND HEATING EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION OF HUDSON
AND BERGEN COUNTIES, NEW JERSEY
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Walter F. Geiger, doing
business as Walter F. Geiger Company, or any other member of
the above-named Association, to discriminate against Robert
Levine or Francis Besterman, Jr., in violation of Section 8(a) (3)
of said Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce the em-
ployees of the said Walter F. Geiger Company or of any other
member of the said Association, in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of said Act, except to the extent that such
rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in
a labor organization, as a condition of employment, as authorized
by Section 8(a) (3) of said Act as modified by the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse, upon request, to record the names
of Robert Levine and Francis Besterman, Jr., on our out-of-
work list, or refuse to refer them in a nondiscriminatory manner.
LOCAL 69, UNITED ASSN. OF JOURNEYMEN, ETC. 1561
WE WILL make Robert Levine and Francis Besterman, Jr.,
whole for any loss of earnings suffered by them as a result of the
discrimination against them, by paying each of them an amount
equal to the amount which each of them would have earned dur-
ing the period from June 26, 1961, to the date which is 5 days
after the date we notify them and Walter F. Geiger Company
and the Association that we have no objection to their employ-
ment by these employers as journeymen plumbers, less their net
earnings during the period.
LOCAL 69, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN
AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPE
FITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND
CANADA, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 614 National Newark Building, Newark 2, New Jersey, Tele-
phone Number MArket 4-6151, if they have any question concerning
this notice or compliance with its provisions.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case was heard by me at Newark, New Jersey, on October 26 and 27, 1961.
All parties appeared, were represented by counsel, and participated fully in the
hearing. After the close of the hearing the General Counsel and the Respondent
submitted briefs which have been duly considered.
It is alleged in the complaint herein, as amended, that at all times material to the
issues herein, the Respondent and the Party to the Contract, hereinafter called the
Association, have maintained and enforced an agreement between themselves whereby
the plumbing contractors who are members of the Association are required to hire
journeymen plumbers only through the Respondent, that Walter F. Geiger, doing
business as Walter F. Geiger Company, herein called Geiger, is a member of the
Association, that at all times since May 22, 1961, the Respondent has failed and
refused to refer Robert Levine, the Charging Party herein, and one Francis Bester-
man, Jr., hereinafter called Levine and Besterman, respectively, "to employment with
Geiger or other members of the Association pursuant to the exclusive hiring and
referral provisions" of said agreement, because Levine and Besterman are not mem-
bers of the Respondent and because the Respondent "has denied membership" to them
"on grounds other than the failure . . . to tender periodic dues and initiation fees
uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership," to cause
Geiger and other members of the Association to "violate Section 8(a) (3) of the Act"
and to encourage or discourage membership in the Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS INVOLVED
Since the allegations of the complaint of the facts on which the jurisdiction of
the Board in this case is predicated are neither denied, admitted, nor explained in the
Respondent's answer herein and good cause not having been shown why said facts
1562 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
should not be deemed to be admitted to be true, I find that during the past year Walter
F. Geiger, doing business as Walter F. Geiger Company, a member of the Association,
performed services of a value in excess of $50,000 for Standard Brands Corporation
which has an annual direct outflow of its products, in interstate commerce, of a value
in excess of $50,000, and that during the same period the members of the Associa-
tion had a direct inflow, in interstate commerce, of goods and materials of a value
in excess of $50,000, which goods and materials were shipped to them in the State of
New Jersey, directly from points outside of that State.
I find, therefore, that Geiger and the Association are engaged in "commerce" and
in operations "affecting commerce" as those terms are defined in Section 2(6) and
(7) respectively, of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the
Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over said
employers.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The General Counsel alleges, the Respondent admits, and I find that the Re-
spondent is a labor organization as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES INVOLVED
Basic Facts
The Association and the Respondent are parties to a collective-bargaining agree-
ment which is in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, hereinafter referred to as
the Agreement, covering journeymen plumbers employed by the members of the
Association.
The Agreement was executed May 1, 1959, is effective for the period from that
date until April 30, 1962, and was in full force and effect at all times material to
the issues herein.
The Agreement contains the following provisions, among others:
SEC. 53. Hiring Procedure
B. Exclusive Hiring. Contractors shall hire qualified journeymen plumbers
by calling the Union. Whenever an employer requires a journeyman plumber on
any job, he shall notify the local union office, either in writing or by telephone,
stating the location, starting time, approximate duration of the job, the type of
work to be performed and the number of workmen required.
C. Registration. The union shall establish and maintain an appropriate regis-
tration facility for qualified applicants available for employment as journeymen
plumbers. Applicants shall be registered on the appropriate out-of-work list,
i.e., either plumber etc., in the order of time and date of registration. Each
applicant for employment shall be required to furnish such date, records, names
of employers and licenses as may be deemed necessary and each applicant shall
complete such form or registration as shall be submitted to him. Applicants
for employment shall also list any special skills they possess.
D. Referral of Men. Upon request of a contractor for plumbers, the union
shall immediately refer competent and qualified registrants to that contractor in
sufficient number required by the contractor, in the manner and under the con-
ditions specified in this agreement, from the separate appropriate out-of-work
list on a first in, first out basis; that is, the first man registered shall be the first
man referred, except that: (1) Requests by contractors for key men to act as
supervisors, general foremen or foremen shall be honored without regard to the
requested man's place on the out-of-work list. (2) Requests by contractors for
particular plumbers previously employed by the contractor and who have been
laid off or terminated by the contractor within one hundred fifty (150) days
previous to the request shall be given preference of rehire and shall be dis-
patched to the contractor, regardless of the applicant's position on the out-of-
work list.
Both Levine and Besterman are journeymen plumbers. Neither of them is a
member of the Respondent. Both of them had been employed by Geiger within
the 150-day period prior to June 26, 1951, having been laid off by that employer on
March 19, 1961.
On May 22, 1961, Levine and Besterman went to the office of the Respondent and
attempted to put their names of its out-of-work list. Whether they were technically
successful in getting on such list at that time is immaterial since the Respondent ad-
mits that journeymen in the 150-day category would be referred to the employer for
whom they had worked within such period whether or not their names were on such
list. The Respondent's business manager, Peter Zampella, was not present and the
LOCAL 69, UNITED ASSN. OF JOURNEYMEN, ETC. 1563
Respondent 's employee McAndrews with whom they talked at that time wrote down
the information and later gave it to Zampella.
On or about June 21, 1961, Geiger telegraphed the Respondent to refer Levine and
Besterman to him for work on Monday, June 26, 1961. On that date the contents
of Geiger's telegram were telephoned to the Respondent's office and on the following
day the Respondent telegraphed Geiger, "Please report to this office re standard
Brand job Friday morning." According to Zampella this telegram was sent to Geiger
to determine if his telegram of the 21st was authentic.
On June 22, 1961, Geiger had a telephone conversation with Zampella in which
he again requested the referral of Levine and Besterman. I base this finding on the
testimony of Geiger, a straightforward witness who was not directly interested in the
outcome of this case and who was obviously telling the truth on the witness stand.
I do not credit the denial of Zampella because of his demeanor on the witness stand
which indicated to me clearly that he was less than frank about the entire controversy.
For the same reason I have also credited the testimony of Levine and Besterman
where it conflicts with the testimony of Zampella.
Although neither the telegraphic request nor the telephonic request by Geiger
for the referral of Levine and Besterman complied strictly with provisions of
the Agreement , I think both of the requests complied substantially with the require-
ments of the Agreement and that in any event the Respondent , by its entire course
of conduct, waived strict compliance . In this connection I note that neither the tele-
graphic request nor the telephonic request stated "the location , starting time , approxi-
mate duration of the job, the type of work to be performed." The Respondent,
however, by insisting only that Geiger come to the office and put his request in writ-
ing, as a condition precedent to the referral of Levine and Besterman , waived strict
compliance with the referral provisions of the Agreement.
On the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in Georgia , Florida & Alabama
Railway Company v. Blish Milling Company, 241 U.S. 190, I also find that Geiger's
telegram of June 21, 1961, was a request in writing and therefore satisfied that
requirement of the Agreement.
Since the conduct of the Respondent in this case is not referring Levine and
Besterman , on the occasion in question, is not explainable on any rational basis
other than on the basis of the fact that they were not members , I find that it failed to
refer them because of such nonmembership , that it thereby caused Geiger not
to employ them on June 26, 1961, and that such failure necessarily encouraged
membership in the Respondent.
Since the Respondent's failure and refusal to permit them to register on its out-
of-work list meant that they were not available for hire by any other member of
the Association, I find that it, in effect , caused the other members of the Associa-
tion not to consider them for employment.
The Respondent contends that, on June 26 or 27, 1961, Geiger withdrew his
request for the referral of Levine and Besterman and that such withdrawal consti-
tutes a defense to its violations of Section 8(b)(1),(A) and (2) of the Act. It is
true that Geiger testified that after he learned of the "brawl" involving Levine,
Besterman , and Zampella and the fact that warrants had been issued , apparently
for Levine and Besterman , he concluded they were not available and consequently
withdrew his request for their referral because, as he put it, "If this is the situation,
then men who had warrants against them and the police are looking for them, I
don't want to get mixed up in this."
The obvious answer to this contention is that the violations of the Act involved
had, at the time of the withdrawal, already been consummated , in that previous
to such withdrawal the Respondent had failed to refer Levine and Besterman to
Geiger although it had received from him both a written request and a request by
telephone for the referral of said journeymen , both and each of which requests
satisfied fully the requirements of the Agreement.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices as
indicated above, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and that
it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The Respondent having caused Walter F. Geiger to fail and refuse, on June 26,
1961, to hire Robert Levine and Francis Besterman , Jr., it is recommended that
the Respondent make each of them whole for any loss of earning they may have suf-
fered as a result of said discrimination , by paying each of them an amount equal
to the amount each of them would have earned from that date until the date which
is 5 days after the Respondent notifies them , the said Geiger, and the Plumbing and
Heating Employers Association of Hudson and Bergen Counties, N.J., that it has no
1564 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
objection to their employment by said employers as journemen plumbers, less their
net earnings during said period . Such backpay shall be computed on a quarterly
basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Geiger and the Association are each engaged in commerce and in operations
affecting commerce as those terms are defined in Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act,
respectively.
2. The Respondent is a labor organization as that term is defined in Section 2(5)
of the Act.
3. Geiger and the Association each is an employer as that term is defined in
Section 2 (2) of the Act.
4. By failing and refusing , on June 21 , 1961, and thereafter , to refer journeymen
plumbers Levine and Besterman to Geiger for employment by him on June 26, 1961,
the Respondent caused Geiger to discriminate against said journeymen in violation
of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act and thereby coerced and restrained them in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
5. By failing and refusing , on or about May 22, 1961, and thereafter , to record
the names of said journeymen on its out-of-work list, the Respondent attempted to
cause the members of the Association to deny them employment in violation of
Section 8 (b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Local 1199, Drug and Hospital Employees Union , Retail , Whole-
sale and Department Store Employees Union , AFL-CIO and
Janel Sales Corporation and Food Packers, Cannery & Mis-
cellaneous Workers Union , Local 220 of the Amalgamated
Meatcutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-
CIO, Party to the Contract . Case No. t-CP-81. April 26, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 9, 1961, Trial Examiner Henry S. Sahm issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action as set forth in the Intermediate
Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report, and the General Counsel filed a memoran-
dum in support of the Intermediate Report.
Pursuant to provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Rodgers, Fanning, and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions, memorandum, and the entire record,
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner only to the extent they are consistent with our
decision herein.
136 NLRB No. 143.